Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder what Transport for London's vote counting script is written in:
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/cgi-bin/ppp_vote?0
I wonder if it will cope with the superior rapid ballot stuffing abilities
of perl?
It will.
I wonder if that
On 07 Mar 2002 07:42:37 -0800, (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
No, that's what it's been bastardized to mean. Originally, GET was for
idempotent operations, and POST was for things that change the state of
the server. Hence, GETs can be cached, but POSTs never are.
Of course, like everything on
I wonder what Transport for London's vote counting script is written in:
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/cgi-bin/ppp_vote?0
I wonder if it will cope with the superior rapid ballot stuffing abilities
of perl? I wonder if that would be counter productive?
Nicholas Clark
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 09:20:19AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I wonder what Transport for London's vote counting script is written in:
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/cgi-bin/ppp_vote?0
I think it would have been more reasonable to post the address of the
voting page
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 09:47:56AM +, Roger Burton West said:
I wonder if it will cope with the superior rapid ballot stuffing abilities
of perl? I wonder if that would be counter productive?
They probably aren't clued enough to spot it; and if they do, they'll
turn to Microsoft, who'll
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 09:47:56AM +, Roger Burton West wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 09:20:19AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I wonder what Transport for London's vote counting script is written in:
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/cgi-bin/ppp_vote?0
I think it would have been
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:38:43PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
But am I wrong to assume that people are intelligent enough not just
to click on random links without realising that there may be some
consequences?
I don't know about the membership of this list, but bearing in mind that
it's
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
But am I wrong to assume that people are intelligent enough not just
to click on random links without realising that there may be some
consequences?
Hmm. Didn't I read that GET operations are not meant to have side effects.
Isn't that's what post
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:43:23PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
But am I wrong to assume that people are intelligent enough not just
to click on random links without realising that there may be some
consequences?
Hmm. Didn't I read that GET
Paul Makepeace wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:43:23PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
But am I wrong to assume that people are intelligent enough not just
to click on random links without realising that there may be some
consequences?
Hmm.
Paul == Paul Makepeace [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm. Didn't I read that GET operations are not meant to have side effects.
Isn't that's what post operations are for?
Paul I thought POST was a way to send more data (GETs only guaranteed up to
Paul 1024 chars), and/or data wrapped as a
11 matches
Mail list logo
